Hyde Housing Association Limited (202226622)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226622

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of replacement works to doors and windows.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling;
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 3-bedroom house. The resident’s partner acted as her representative during the complaint – both will be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
On 1 August 2022 the landlord arranged for its contractor to attend to the resident’s property and, ‘’if possible’’, re-fit the front door frame. The landlord replaced the front door on 7 March 2023.
On 5 September 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In summary, she said that when the landlord’s contractor attended to replace the bedroom windows, they cut the frame down which left no space to attach her blinds. She stated that the landlord came out afterward and agreed that the windows were not fitted to specification and that it would install new windows and a front door. However, she explained that the contractor who attended afterward told her that they were only instructed to make good. She was unhappy that the landlord had asserted that she had refused the work and that it had not kept her updated. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to do the repairs correctly.
On 21 September 2022 the landlord provided a written response. In summary, it said that the information relayed previously about her windows was incorrect and it apologised for this. It confirmed that the window was on order and that its contractor would contact her when it was ready to be fitted. It added that a new door was not required and it could, at her request, adjust the frame. The landlord subsequently closed the complaint.
The same day, the resident questioned why the complaint was closed as she was told by the landlord that the front door needed replacing. She added that she had not received an apology for how she had been treated and asked the landlord to carry out a survey of the door. In response, the landlord agreed to survey the door and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
On 3 October 2022 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said that the window had been replaced but nobody had come to survey the front door. The next day, the landlord stated that it would get a surveyor to attend the property again to inspect the door. At the end of October 2022 and the beginning of November 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update on her complaint. In addition, she stated that her windows and her back door were not fitted correctly and needed further investigation.
On 17 February 2023, following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process by 10 March 2023. On 15 March 2023, the landlord issued its final response. In summary, it said:
1. It did not repair the window or door as quickly as it should have and did not communicate when the work would be completed.
2. Its first response did not provide a fair and detailed explanation of the complaint.
3. Its contractor had confirmed that the window and door had now been replaced.
4. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused and offered a total of £450 compensation, comprising of £200 for the handling of the complaint, £100 for the delays in completing the repairs, and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she wanted the landlord to replace the windows and doors in the property as a matter of priority, an apology for the way she was treated, and additional compensation for the time, stress, and inconvenience caused. On 24 October 2023, the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint and increased its offer of compensation to £950, comprising of £350 for complaint handling failures, £100 for customer effort, £250 for delays in completing the repairs, and £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The review also included several service improvements to its complaint handling, including the introduction of a new complaint management system.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of replacement works to doors and windows

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The landlord’s repairs procedure states that all non-urgent repairs will be attended to and completed within 20 working days. The landlord’s stock and investment procedure states that for things like window and door replacements, it will contact the resident to arrange a pre-survey appointment and once works are agreed, a copy of the specification should be provided to the resident to sign.
It is unclear what prompted the landlord to arrange for its contractor to attend the resident’s property and re-fit the front door frame in August 2022. In addition, this Service has seen no records concerning the replacement of the resident’s bedroom windows. Therefore, we have been unable to assess what work took place before the resident’s complaint and, in particular, what work was originally agreed or remained outstanding.
Overall, the landlord’s repair records were either missing or lacking detail, meaning it is unclear when appointments were raised, what work took place, and any actions agreed upon. In addition, this Service has not been provided with copies of any surveyor reports despite the evidence suggesting that surveys did take place during the complaint. This indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping and the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in this regard. In this case, we are not making an order for remedy as repair record-keeping orders that relate to similar issues have been made in other recent Ombudsman cases such as 202112886 and 202203159.
In the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, it agreed to fit a new ‘window’ and informed her that its contractor would contact her to arrange installation. An email from the resident to the landlord dated 3 October 2022 confirmed that the ‘window ‘was replaced on this date. While it is reasonable to assume that the landlord kept to its repair timescales in this respect, there are no landlord records to reconcile this. Furthermore, it is unclear what ‘window’ was replaced. This is concerning and again indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
In September 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it would not replace the front door but would be happy to refit it. Its internal records indicated that it previously inspected the door and found that it did not need replacing, yet this Service has seen no evidence, such as a surveyor’s report or repair logs, to support this conclusion. In any case, the landlord subsequently agreed to resurvey the door. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, it is unclear if this survey took place and there was evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for updates on at least 2 occasions. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord obtained a quote to replace the front door. On the same day, the resident raised concerns about her back door and windows stating they had not been fitted correctly. In addition, she asked for a timescale on when the front door would be replaced. On 16 November 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would replace her front door within 6 to 7 weeks. Although it is unclear what windows the resident was referring to in November 2022, the landlord informed her that someone would contact her to survey the back door and windows, however, there was no evidence that this happened.
In December 2022 and January 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update. While the evidence showed that the landlord made efforts to obtain information from its contractor, it should have kept the resident updated on the steps it was taking and informed her of any likely delays. Its failure to do so would have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 January 2023 to advise that its contractor had turned up to measure the front door unexpectedly and informed her that there would be another 8-week wait to replace the front door. This was unreasonable and the landlord failed to act in line with its procedure which states that it will contact the resident to arrange a pre-survey appointment. This would have caused frustration to the resident who was entitled to believe that the front door would be replaced sooner. The landlord’s records indicated that the front door was replaced on 7 March 2023 – this was over 7 months after the resident’s initial complaint and almost 2 months after the landlord’s agreed timescale of 6 to 7 weeks. These were considerable delays.
The landlord’s records showed that it was not until 1 February 2023 that it instructed its contractor to survey the back door and windows in the property. While it appears that the contractor surveyed these on 6 February 2023, this was another considerable delay. The landlord should have instructed the surveyor to conduct this survey much sooner and as agreed with the resident on 16 November 2022. In addition, upon the resident chasing the matter, this should have prompted the landlord to check with its contractor the status of the survey and update the resident accordingly.
On 6 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor provided a quote to replace the kitchen window and door, replace the front bedroom window, and trim and replace 5 windows and 1 door in the property. However, the landlord did not action this until 19 May 2023 when it raised an inspection, which was subsequently cancelled. While it is not entirely clear why this inspection was cancelled, its records appeared to suggest that it missed the original quote from its contractor. In any case, it took the landlord over 2 months to action the contractor’s quote. This would have caused further delays in getting matters resolved for the resident.
Its records indicated that another contractor went out to survey the property at the beginning of July 2023. The landlord subsequently sent a letter to the resident on 18 July 2023, advising her that the replacement of the windows and rear door would be included in its programme and that its contractor would write to her when the works would take place. Its records indicated that these works were due to take place in October 2023, however, it is unclear if this happened.
Overall, this report has identified significant failings in the landlord’s handling of replacement works to doors and windows. The landlord failed to keep to commitments made, there were considerable delays in completing the works and its communication with the resident was poor.
The Ombudsman notes that in the landlord’s October 2023 review of the complaint, it apologised, demonstrated learning, and offered further redress. However, the Ombudsman expects landlords to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings sooner and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appears to this Service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Had the landlord made its offer of compensation during its complaints process, this may have been satisfactory in putting things right.
As it did not, however, this Service has determined that there was maladministration. This Service is content that the landlord has sought to put things right for the resident, however, the adverse findings in this case should encourage future learning for the landlord. In addition, it is unclear if the other windows and back door have now been repaired or replaced to date and whether the landlord has offered redress for the failings identified regarding these matters. Therefore, an order has been made below for remedy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will let residents know about their right to access the Housing Ombudsman Service at the outset and will routinely signpost to this Service when it provides its complaint responses to residents. It also states that if a resident is not satisfied with its response at stage 1, they can ask for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its process which must be responded to no later than 20 working days.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘The Code’) lists what the landlord must confirm in its stage 1 response. This includes the complaint stage and definition and how to escalate the matter to stage 2 of its process if the resident is not satisfied with its answer.
The landlord’s September 2022 response to the resident’s complaint was unsatisfactory. It failed to provide a complaint definition, it did not state what stage the complaint was at and failed to explain what to do if the resident remained unhappy. Its response also lacked detail, and it did not signpost the resident to this Service. Overall, it failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy or the ‘Code’. This would have caused frustration and confusion to the resident who would have been unclear if this was a formal response from the landlord and what steps she could take to pursue this matter further.
On 3 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint and outlined the reasons why, yet the landlord failed to do so. This led to the resident consistently questioning why her complaint was not being dealt with properly. It was not until this Service became involved in February 2023 that the landlord escalated the complaint. The landlord eventually provided its stage 2 final response on 15 March 2023, over 5 months after the resident’s initial escalation request. This was a considerable delay and the landlord failed to respond to the complaint within the timescales set out in its policy. Furthermore, its response failed to acknowledge or apologise for these delays. Moreover, the Ombudsman notes the time and trouble caused to the resident who repeatedly had to chase for updates.
It is also noted that the landlord did not address the reported issues with the resident’s back door and the other windows in the property in its final response, despite her raising this issue in November 2022. The landlord’s records showed that it knew the resident was unhappy about this matter and that it had subsequently highlighted this internally with colleagues. Instead, it appears that the landlord raised a new complaint about her back door and second bedroom window after its final response. This was inappropriate and it is unclear why it took this approach. As these matters were linked, the landlord should have also addressed all her concerns as part of its March 2023 final response. Its failure to do so demonstrated that it had not taken enough care to accurately assess all the issues raised.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord apologised and offered a total of £350 redress for these complaint handling failures in its October 2023 review of this complaint. Overall, its findings and the solutions offered in this review are considered to meet this Service’s expectations and guidance for appropriate resolution and redress. In addition, its response demonstrated that it had learned lessons from these failings and had committed to service improvements to prevent this from happening again.
However, when looking to determine whether this is ‘reasonable redress’, the Ombudsman must establish what initiated the landlord to review the case in October 20023. The evidence shows it was only the intervention of this Service that prompted it to do so. In addition, even though the landlord offered more appropriate redress, it did not negate the fact that the resolutions and redress offered could have been provided sooner, and within the landlord’s internal process. As such, they are not considered sufficient to avoid a finding of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of replacement work to doors and windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Orders

The landlord must do the following within the next four weeks:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £950 as offered in its October 2023 review of the resident’s complaint.
2. Carry out an inspection of the windows and doors and satisfy itself that they are fit for purpose. If any works are identified it must undertake these within a reasonable timescale. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the inspection report.
3. Review its handling of repairs to the resident’s back door and other windows in the property and make an offer of compensation for any failings identified.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.